“Rio 2” is a perfect example of franchise maintenance in place of storytelling, and the nicest thing I can say about it is that my kids found it to be an agreeable way to spend part of an afternoon.

I know I saw the first “Rio.” My review of it was published in the days before we started putting letter grades on films in our reviews, but I would have given it a B or a B-. I liked the way they used Rio as a setting, I thought the performances were spirited and fun, and I really liked the soundtrack that was put together by Sergio Mendes. The sequel, which is practically the definition of “more of the same,” is less successful in the way it uses the rain forest as a setting, and it features performances that feel far more phoned in while still featuring a non-stop dynamic soundtrack put together by Sergio Mendes. There is nothing about the film that feels particularly compelling, and the story is really just an excuse to put a new obstacle between Blu (Jesse Eisenberg) and Jewel (Anne Hathaway) while bad guy Nigel (Jemaine Clement) once again skulks about, all on the way to a happy ending you'll see coming a mile away.

A movie like this is made and scheduled because it is a property that Fox wants to keep active, not out of any particular need in storytelling. Carlos Saldanha is a reliable co-ordinator for this kind of bright, colorful, kid-friendly property. The palette of the movie is once again eye-popping and vivid, and it's apparent that the Blue Sky team has gotten to a place where they are capable of enormous technical sophistication. Looking at the actual craft of the animation, they're very impressive. There's some very strong character performance work that is made more memorable because of the mannerisms of real birds that they use. But all of it is in service to a disappointingly familiar overall piece of work.

The most depressing thing about movies made for kids is how the moment kids indicate that they enjoy something the first time, studios begin to mercilessly milk that thing. It's like they're terrified to just tell a story that takes place in one film and then move on to another story. The films get worse and worse in most cases, and being able to point at the “Toy Story” franchise isn't an excuse for everyone else to do it. Instead, it should be proof of just how difficult it is to do it right. So many of these films are already similar, so everything starts to blend together after a certain point. Most tellingly, because my kids know there will be more chapters of pretty much everything, they are very selective with what they'll watch a second or third or fifteenth time. They may like “Rio” in the theater, but they're not driven to see it over and over because they know they'll get a sequel that will be pretty much the same exact film. Watching how hard it was for the filmmakers to work all the characters from the first film into this one and how shabby the actual story structure is, it feels like this was an obligation, and that's never the best way to tell a story.

Blu and Jewel have adapted nicely to their lives as parents of three young birds, while their owners Linda (Leslie Mann) and Tulio (Rodrigo Santoro, who would make this franchise infinitely better if he would play his role as Xerxes from “300” instead) are deep in the jungle, looking for more wild macaws. They end up encountering evil loggers in the exact same spot where they find a huge colony of these thought-to-be-extinct birds. Blu and Jewel decide to fly their family into the Amazon to help out, and when they find the rest of the flock, Jewel realizes this is her family who she thought were dead. Blu struggles to fit in while trying to win over Eduardo (Andy Garcia), Jewel's father. It sounds like it's a busy movie, but it's really not. There's no real urgency at any point, even when you've got a ridiculous bad guy voiced by Miguel Ferrer trying to kill Linda and Trulio, and every potential conflict they introduce seems like you've seen it a hundred times before. Gee, I wonder if Jewel's father will ever warm up to Blu. I wonder if her childhood sweetheart Roberto (Bruno Mars) will turn out to be less perfect than he seems. I wonder if Linda and Trulio will reunite with their birds and stop the evil loggers, thereby guaranteeing the flock will live in safety forever.

The supporting characters like Rafael (George Lopez), Nico (Jamie Foxx), and Luiz (Tracy Morgan) are just shoved into the margins of the film just so they have an excuse to put their names in the trailers. The one new cast member who makes any impression is Kristen Chenoweth, but it's not for the right reasons. She plays a poisonous tree frog who is in love with Nigel, the evil bird played once again with his characteristic Mick-Jagger-On-Ludes charm by Jemaine Clement, and her entire character arc is about how she wishes she could have sex with Nigel but can't because she'd kill him. It is a truly bizarre character choice, and her big musical number is like the Evil Alternate Universe version of Josh Gad's “In Summer” number from “Frozen.”

“Rio 2” is fine, which is not the same as saying it's good. With Fox now releasing movies from both DreamWorks Animation and Blue Sky Studios, it would be great if they actually pushed the filmmakers to experiment and try new things and build off of their successes in interesting ways. Instead, I worry that everything's just going to be “Croods” and “Rio” and “Ice Age” and “Shrek” sequels for as long as they can grind them out.

Around The Web

Join The Discussion: Log In With

Thanks for the review. I think I’ll buy the soundtrack and skip the movie.

By: Megalodon

04.09.2014 @ 11:46 PM

At least the How To Train Your Dragon sequel looks solid and satisfying. Can’t wait for that.

By: Monty Jack

04.10.2014 @ 2:47 AM

Blue Sky is the king of Deeply Unnecessary Sequels. I enjoyed the first Rio simply on the basis of its colorful animation and infectious soundtrack, but nothing really compelled me to think, “Wow, I want to see the further adventures of these characters in a series of sequels!” It’s hard to remember how truly enjoyable the first Ice Age was when there have been three sequels (and a fourth in the works), one of which featured a VAGINA JOKE (“Big smelly crack”).

By: That Werewolf Guy

04.10.2014 @ 6:27 AM

No offense, but how can someome hear “Big smelly crack” and immediately thing of a vagina and not of a…well…butt crack? (Apologies for making it sound like I would defend that kind of joke :D )

By: Monty Jack

04.10.2014 @ 3:48 PM

Maybe the fact that it was a character voiced by Simon Pegg just naturally made me think the joke was dirtier than it was? Butt crack makes more sense, however…kids do so love their fart humor.

By: Seasider

04.12.2014 @ 6:44 PM

Sadly, none of the animation studios these days are immune to the unnecessary sequel bug. You got Pixar making sequels to Cars, Finding Nemo and a forgettable prequel to Monsters Inc. It all comes down to money with all these studios.

By: John Cap

07.03.2014 @ 4:15 PM

What I don’t get from this review is why are you making such a big deal out of its story?

If you saw the 1st film, you’ll know that the story there was also nothing special or original. It was a generic love story for Blu and Jewel. You still seemed to like it despite its weak story. Then the 2nd film comes and now you don’t like it because of story? Did you just go backwards on your opinion of the 1st.

Addressing the other complaints quickly, I thought the performances were fine, and while the Amazon isn’t as interesting as Rio, it’s still the perfect setting for the environmental message the film has. Thinking of Gabi as a frog that wants to have sex with Nigel is a pretty immature way of looking at things. She’s just in love with him, and probably just wants to touch him, that’s all.

Back to what I was saying. Yes, the plot isn’t good since it lacks focus and it features too many subplots, BUT that wasn’t what the film was going for. What bugs me most about critics is how one-minded some of them are. Rio is a prime example of a style over substance kind of film. You don’t watch these movies for the plot because they aren’t plot-centered. You obviously went in to this movie with the wrong mindset thinking that way.

There are PLENTY of animated films that you DON’T watch for the story besides Rio: Madagascar, The Croods, Cars, Despicable Me, Monsters vs. Aliens, Megamind, and plenty more examples. Rio wasn’t the 1st film to do this template of entertainment over story, so why are you making such a big deal out of this? Were you expecting a quality story despite the fact the 1st one’s was never good to begin with?

I don’t get why you critics want story in so many different movies, even in ones that are meant to be watched NOT for their story, but for their appealing categories like animation, songs, comedy, and characters. If you’re gonna make such a big deal out of story, then go read a book.

Movies are meant to entertain audiences, not to tell engrossing stories. Again, read a book for that. Not every movie in a particular genre is gonna be plot-centered. And don’t bother bringing up Pixar, Studio Ghilbi, and some of Dreamwork’s films to try to say that story matters because it still doesn’t 100% of the time. Just because a few films have been able to tell great stories in a genre, that doesn’t mean all films should. Let’s look at some action films for example

There are some action movies that have great comedy in them. Does that mean all action films should be funny to be good? NO. Just because a few films accomplish something in their genre, that doesn’t mean ALL films should. Of course. there are a few examples where this doesn’t apply like in animation for animated films, or horror in horror films, but story isn’t one of those examples. You want story but you don’t want to read? Then go watch a drama, thriller, mystery, or oscar nominee. These genres mostly relish in plot. Family films, which is what most animated films fall into, are watched to be entertaining to audiences. If I were a dad, and I wanted to take my wife and kids to watch a movie, I’ll probably take them to watch a fun movie to keep us entertained, NOT to try and tell a compelling story. That comes second. If I were in the mood for a good story, or if I wanted to watch a film by myself, then I’ll go ahead and watch a film with a good story. It just seems you were watching Rio 2 with your “critic” goggles rather than just having fun with it.

I’ve already given out films that don’t rely on plot to be enjoyable, I’ve given out examples as to why the target audience would watch these kinds of movies (to entertain the family), and I’ve said why story isn’t king unless you read a book. I’m also surprised that you gave TF4 a B- despite a pretty bad story. Oh wait, you were able to enjoy TF4 despite it having a bad story? I guess you’re not so one-minded at all. But why is it you gave that film a pass, plus many others I’m sure of on story, yet for Rio 2, you couldn’t.

Yeah, some of the best animated films had great stories as well, but that shouldn’t mean that all films in the genre have to. That would just put more unnecessary pressure on the studios. Rio 2 may not be an animated classic, but that still doesn’t mean it can’t be enjoyed because of a bad story seeing as how there are PLENTY of other films that did the same. Next time you’re watching an animated film, at least try to understand that a film’s story should only matter if the film wants it to matter.